Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 822–831 | Cite as

Validity of the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile

  • Joe L. Verna
  • Leonard N. Matheson
  • Sharon Scherer
  • John M. MayerEmail author
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Background The Multidimensional Task Ability Profile (MTAP) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure that provides a global score linked to the physical demand characteristics of work, but needs to be validated against established measures. Purpose To assess the concurrent validity of the MTAP compared with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), and Short Form 12 Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-12) questionnaires. Methods An observational study was conducted in 157 patients undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. At baseline and after 30 days of treatment, patients completed the MTAP, ODI, NDI, DASH, LEFS, and SF-12 and provided self-reported work status. Results At baseline and after 30 days, convergent validity between the MTAP and DASH, LEFS, NDI, and ODI was good to excellent. Concurrent validity between the MTAP and SF-12 physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) was moderate or fair, respectively. Sensitivity to change over the 30-day treatment interval was established for the MTAP, SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, and LEFS. Fair to moderate predictive validity for work status was found for the MTAP, ODI, NDI, DASH, and SF-12 PCS. Conclusions The MTAP demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, predictive validity, and sensitivity to change compared to other PROs. For patients with various impairment types, the MTAP may be a useful omnibus measure to supplement specialty instruments such as the DASH, NDI, ODI, or LEFS.

Keywords

Patient reported outcome measures Physical function Musculoskeletal rehabilitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of Spine & Sport Inc. for assistance with coordination and data collection for this study. The authors also thank Dr. Bryan Kemp for assistance with the Older Adult Health Questionnaire and for serving as chair of the Foundation’s Institutional Review Board.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

This study was funded by the Vert Mooney Research Foundation, a 501c(3) charitable organization that developed and currently owns the Multidimensional Task Ability Profile. Leonard Matheson, John Mayer, and Joe Verna are board members of the Vert Mooney Research Foundation. Leonard Matheson and Joe Verna own the intellectual property for the MTAP and benefit financially from MTAP sales and subscriptions. John Mayer received financial compensation for contributing to this project.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 [41].

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Rose M, et al. Evaluation of a preliminary physical function item bank supported the expected advantages of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):17–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matheson LN, Kaskutas VK, Mada D. Development and construct validation of the Hand Function Sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11(2):75–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayer J, et al. The reliability and validity of a new computerized pictorial activity and task sort. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):185–195.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kramer A, Holthaus D. Uniform patient assessment for post-acute care. Final report. Aurora, CO: Division of Health Care Policy and Research, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Medical Association. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2008. p. 613.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khorsan R, et al. Measures in chiropractic research: choosing patient-based outcome assessments. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(5):355–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Author. Official disability guidelines. Austin, TX: MCG Health; 2019.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cella D, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–1194.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive under the physician fee schedule, and criteria for physician-focused payment models. Final rule with comment period. Fed Reg. 2016;81(214):77008–77831.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quality ID #182 (NQF 2624): Functional Outcome Assessment 2019. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/ClinicalQualityMeasures.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  11. 11.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–2952.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binkley JM, et al. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Therapy. 1999;79(4):371–383.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller S. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matheson L. History, design characteristics, and uses of the pictorial activity and task sorts. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14(3):175–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matheson L, Matheson M, Grant J. Development of a measure of perceived functional ability. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3(1):15–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verna JL, et al. Development and reliability testing of Spanish language and English language versions of the multidimensional task ability profile. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):220–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matheson L, et al. A method to provide a more efficient and reliable measure of self-report physical work capacity for patients with spinal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):46–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mooney V, et al. Performance-integrated self-report measurement of physical ability. Spine J. 2010;10(1):433–440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrich D. Rasch models of measurement. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and the attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institute; 1960.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Department of Labor. Dictionary of Occupational Titles, vol. 1. 4th ed. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office; 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kemp B, Adams B. The older adult health and mood questionnaire: a measure of geriatric depressive disorder. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1995;8(July):162–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matheson L. Multidimensional Task Ability Profile professional manual. St. Charles, MO: EpicRehab LLC.; 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergbom S, et al. Relationship among pain catastrophizing, depressed mood, and outcomes across physical therapy treatments. Phys Therapy. 2011;91(5):754–764.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moreno R, et al. Functional restoration for chronic low back pain: changes in depression, cognitive distortion, and disability. J Occup Rehabil. 1991;1(3):207–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Theodore BR. The pain disability questionnaire: relationship to one-year functional and psychosocial rehabilitation outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(1):72–91.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adams H, et al. The relation between catastrophizing and occupational disability in individuals with major depression: concurrent and prospective associations. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):405–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43(4):357–374.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luo X, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the short form 12-item survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine. 2003;28(15):1739–1745.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 2000. p. 742.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baldwin ML, et al. Self-reported severity measures as predictors of return-to-work outcomes in occupational back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(4):683–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Predictive value of the DASH tool for predicting return to work of injured workers with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73(12):807–815.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marchand GH, et al. Change in pain, disability and influence of fear-avoidance in a work-focused intervention on neck and back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):94–104.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGirt MJ, et al. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wind H, et al. Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):253–272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gopinath B, et al. Prognostic indicators of social outcomes in persons who sustained an injury in a road traffic crash. Injury. 2015;46(5):909–917.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tschernetzki-Neilson PJ, et al. Changing to an outcome-focused program improves return to work outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):473–486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe L. Verna
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leonard N. Matheson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sharon Scherer
    • 2
  • John M. Mayer
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Vert Mooney Research FoundationSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Spine & Sport, IncSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Epic Neurorehabilitation & Psychological Services, IncChicoUSA
  4. 4.Excellcior, LLCTampaUSA
  5. 5.Vert Mooney Research FoundationSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations